. Sorry if I am displaying my ignorance here but was HMS KGV not part of the Centurion class ? The KGV class was not commissioned til 1939.

warspite1

According to Burt's British battleships, it was the KGV-class, not the Centurion-class. This is supported by Conways warships 1906-1921 which also state the name ship of the class was KGV and not Centurion. Out of interest what source do you have that cites Centurion as being the class name?

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson - October 1805

. Sorry if I am displaying my ignorance here but was HMS KGV not part of the Centurion class ? The KGV class was not commissioned til 1939.

Having done more reading am I right that there are 2 classes of KGV battleships ? Those commissioned in 1911 (KGV, Centurion, Audacious, Ajax) and the second world war (KGV, Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Howe, Anson).

Warspite1

Yes, that is correct, although of course the two KGV's were not around at the same time. HMS Centurion was the only ship of the earlier KGV-class to remain in existence (albeit de-militarised) by the outbreak of WWII.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 8/30/2012 7:02:51 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson - October 1805

As part of a project to give the Norwegian Campaign a facelift, I have finalised the Courageous-class intro.

[4543 Glorious] .B Engine(s) output: 90,000 hp .B Top Speed: 30 knots .B Main armament: 16 x 4.7-inch (119mm) guns and 3 x 8-barrelled 2-pdr pompoms .B Aircraft: 48 .B Displacement (full load): 27,400 tons .B Thickest armour: 3-inch (belt) .P The two ships of the Courageous-class - Courageous and Glorious - were, along with their half-sister Furious, the only capital ships ever built for a specific operation. They were designed just after the outbreak of World War I with a view to undertaking Admiral John Fisher's Baltic Project; a plan - never carried out - to sail an invasion fleet into the Baltic Sea and land an army on the German coast, from where they would march on Berlin. .P The Courageous-class ships, built between 1915 and 1917, were classed as large light cruisers - effectively light battlecruisers. They were fast ships, armed with four 15-inch guns, but were given very little in the way of armour protection. At the end of the war they were surplus to requirements and placed in reserve. .P However, a reprieve was at hand. Under the terms of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, the Royal Navy (RN) was allowed to convert the two sisters into aircraft carriers. Courageous' conversion was completed in May 1928, with Glorious following in February 1930. .P Initially the ships had two flight decks, including a flying off deck at the bow. The latter, suitable for the small aircraft of the time, was removed during a refit in the mid-thirties and the space used to house additional anti- aircraft (AA) weaponry. .P The two ships were very similar visually, with an island structure and large funnel fitted on the starboard side. Their appearance was perhaps spoiled by the abrupt ending of the flight deck well short of the bow. Differentiation between the two became easier when, in the mid-thirties, Glorious received an extension to her flight deck aft which took the flight deck level with her stern. Despite the benefits this extension gave the pilots, Courageous was not given the same treatment. .P The ships were able to carry 48 aircraft, which was significantly more than the capacity of the RN's existing carrier fleet. The aircraft were housed in two hangers that were served by two lifts. Plans were drawn up to convert the ships to a single hanger arrangement in the late thirties, but these changes, which would have increased capacity and allowed for new armour plating, were never implemented. .P As was the case with all RN carriers at the start of World War II, they were hampered in their effectiveness by the poor quality aircraft that they were able to employ. This was a result of a lack of money for defence spending between the wars and this deficiency was then made worse because of the decision to have the Royal Air Force (RAF) responsible for naval aircraft. .P To assist take-off two catapults were fitted - each capable of launching 8,000lb at 56 knots. Four arrester wires were installed to help safely land the aircraft. 35,700 imperial gallons of aviation fuel was carried. .P Defensive armament was limited to AA weaponry only, with sixteen single 4.7-inch guns. These weapons were augmented with twenty-four 2-pdr pompoms and multiple 0.5-inch machine guns. .P Betraying their light battlecruiser heritage, armour protection was very thin. A belt of just 3-inches provided vertical protection and 0.75-inches for the flight deck. Bulges were fitted, but this was largely to aid stability than for anti-torpedo purposes. .P The ships were fitted with Parsons geared turbines that produced 90,000hp and a top speed of 32 knots. By the time of their conversion, this top speed had reduced to around 30 knots. .P The names Courageous and Glorious were typical of the inspiring and grand names used for RN capital ships.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson - October 1805

[4543 Glorious] .B Engine(s) output: 90,000 hp .B Top Speed: 30 knots .B Main armament: 16 x 4.7-inch (119mm) guns and 3 x 8-barrelled 2-pdr pompoms .B Aircraft: 48 .B Displacement (full load): 27,400 tons .B Thickest armour: 3-inch (belt) .P The two ships of the Courageous-class - Courageous and Glorious - were, along with their half-sister Furious, the only capital ships ever built for a specific operation. They were designed just after the outbreak of World War I with a view to undertaking Admiral John Fisher's Baltic Project; a plan - never carried out - to sail an invasion fleet into the Baltic Sea and land an army on the German coast, from where they would march on Berlin. .P The Courageous-class ships, built between 1915 and 1917, were classed as large light cruisers - effectively light battlecruisers. They were fast ships, armed with four 15-inch guns, but were given very little in the way of armour protection. At the end of the war they were surplus to requirements and placed in reserve. .P However, a reprieve was at hand. Under the terms of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, the Royal Navy (RN) was allowed to convert the two sisters into aircraft carriers. Courageous' conversion was completed in May 1928, with Glorious following in February 1930. .P Initially the ships had two flight decks, a proper flight deck and a flight deck at the bow. The latter, was suitable for the small aircraft of the time, and removed during a refit in the mid-thirties. The reclaimed space was used for additional anti- aircraft (AA) weaponry. .P The two ships were very similar visually, with an island structure and large funnel fitted on the starboard side. The abrupt ending of the flight deck well short of the bow perhaps spoiled their appearance. Differentiation between the two became easier when, in the mid-thirties, Glorious received an extension to her flight deck aft, which took the flight deck level with her stern. Despite the benefits this extension gave the pilots, Courageous was not given the same treatment. .P The ships were able to carry 48 aircraft, which was significantly more than the capacity of the RN's existing carrier fleet. The aircraft were housed in two hangers that were served by two lifts. Plans were drawn up to convert the ships to a single hanger arrangement in the late thirties, but these changes, which would have increased capacity and allowed for new armour plating, were never implemented. .P As was the case with all RN carriers at the start of World War II, they were hampered in their effectiveness by the poor quality aircraft that they were able to employ. This was a result of a lack of money for defence spending between the wars and this deficiency was then made worse because of the decision to have the Royal Air Force (RAF) responsible for naval aircraft. .P To assist take-off two catapults were fitted - each capable of launching 8,000lb at 56 knots. Four arrester wires were installed to help safely land the aircraft. 35,700 imperial gallons of aviation fuel was carried. .P Defensive armament was limited to AA weaponry only, with sixteen single 4.7-inch guns. These weapons were augmented with twenty-four 2-pdr pompoms and multiple 0.5-inch machine guns. .P Betraying their light battlecruiser heritage, armour protection was very thin. A belt of just 3-inches provided vertical protection and 0.75-inches for the flight deck. Bulges were fitted, but this was largely to aid stability than for anti-torpedo purposes. .P The ships were fitted with Parsons geared turbines that produced 90,000hp and a top speed of 32 knots. By the time of their conversion, this top speed had reduced to around 30 knots. .P The names Courageous and Glorious were typical of the inspiring and grand names used for RN capital ships.

_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

Your main issue seems to be whether I provide Italian or English nomenclature. I see no issue in referring to Corpo d’Armata Celere as the "Celere Corps" in passing. I've used Italian and English translations interchangeably througout the Italian writeups; generally as this project is in English I have utilised the English by default but incorporated the full Italian where I feel appropriate, mostly for flavour. "Celere" means something different to "cavalry" so a straight translation is misleading, so I have used the word Celere freely in the English prose, as do many of the references I have utilised, the same way you might say "2nd Panzer division" for instance.

Pre !939 the Frontier Guard had the task of defending the forntier using fortress artillery.

In 1939 its task was still frontier defence but it added supporting arms such as infantry to add the task of being a covering force.

Frontier Guards HQ were attached to XI Army Corps

the Frontier Guard had: 11 Frontier Guard commands each commanded by a Brigadier General assigned to the HQ of the corps area touching the frontier 1 Frontier Guard infantry regiment: to provide training and replacements 9 Frontier Guard artillery regiments 1 independant Frontier Guard group a varying number of covering sectors, these had subsectors and minor specialist units of infantry artillery and engineers. The sector had a depot and its strength depended on local circumstances.

Some of the infantry came from the Frontier Guard Infantry regiment and other personnel generally from the army corps.

Under the Turin milita you use both Turin and Torino. Choose one TURIN or TORINO.

1st Territorial Corps is from Orbat. You and I had this discussion before don't trust Orbat without confirmation.

I consider my responses to your remarks quite reserved for now while you continue to be abusive. Did I hurt your fealings?

My issue, Extraneous, is not with your knowledge, but with your manners.

If anyone else on this public forum states that they believe that it is I, not you, who have been "abusive" in our interactions on this thread then you will have my public apology. Anyone?

I think we are at a level of detail that I'm sure bores anyone else reading this thread, but ok. Yes, I accept "Torino" should be "Turin" for consistency. You are correct that I corps was based in Turin. In the scheme of a militia unit description is this relevant? maybe, maybe not. You contest the existence of 1st Territorial Corps but provide no alternate data or source, you simply assert the info to be incorrect. Your extensive quote from Comando Supremo on GaF I fail to see the relevance of. Which writeup is this pertinent to?

Simply sneering and asserting your opinion from the sidelines is not proof reading. Neither is pasting mass text from other websites- yes I know them too. Your point?

I will continue to complete the remaining Italian land writeups. Feel free to issue your indictments on them from on high. If I think there is anything worth responding to I will do so, but frankly for now I'm done with you- I'd hate to "abuse" you any further.

You quote Orbat to me and then complain when I post a link and information. Did you read the title of the thread?

Guardia alla Frontiera What was the organization of the Guardia alla Frontiera in WWII. I see they appeared in the oob for the invasion of France in 1940. Was a frontier guard sector a company or battalion or just what was it.?

I see you changed GAF to GaF I bet that was humblling.

_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

There are a total of 149 land units left that need write-ups. I am looking for authors to fill in these gaps. If you have any interest in doing so, please send me an email: SHokanson@HawaiianTel.net. The task requires doing some original research, finding multiple sources and writing your own synthesis of what you have learned. Simply cutting and pasting from other sources is NOT what we are looking for here.

I guess Extraneous would also prefer the writeups to be all in Italian too?

This is a volunteer project with people giving their free time to make a better game for all of us. Please give them the benefit of the doubt. Be polite when pointing out errors or ommissions. (or misspellings!)

Here is what you could have said,

Hey Jimm, great writeups buddy! I have read alot about the Italians in WWII and have a couple suggestions if you don't mind.

1. 2. 3.

Hope this helps and keep up the good work friend!

Extraneous

Here is basically what you said,

Damn, you screwed alot of that up. I could do better with my eyes closed noob!

You should have said this

1. 2. 3.

Get it right for gods sake, jesus...

(I provide translation services from smartass to english and from english to smartass on a contract basis, please inquire within.)

Oh, Extraneous said he'll do the rest of the unit writeups because he wants them done "write" the first time. He will have them to you tomorrow evening...

I guess Extraneous would also prefer the writeups to be all in Italian too?

This is a volunteer project with people giving their free time to make a better game for all of us. Please give them the benefit of the doubt. Be polite when pointing out errors or ommissions. (or misspellings!)

Here is what you could have said,

Hey Jimm, great writeups buddy! I have read alot about the Italians in WWII and have a couple suggestions if you don't mind.

1. 2. 3.

Hope this helps and keep up the good work friend!

Extraneous

Here is basically what you said,

Damn, you screwed alot of that up. I could do better with my eyes closed noob!

You should have said this

1. 2. 3.

Get it right for gods sake, jesus...

(I provide translation services from smartass to english and from english to smartass on a contract basis, please inquire within.)

Oh, Extraneous said he'll do the rest of the unit writeups because he wants them done "write" the first time. He will have them to you tomorrow evening...

Good flame to bad you are so badly informed.

You forgot to mention ALL THE WRITE-UPS, CONTENT, EDITING, AND LINKS I have provided to Matrix. For which I DEMAND no credit.

Thanks for trying to put words into my mouth.

What I said was with all the links and information I have provided the focus of the write-ups was in meaningless areas and left out more important meaningful areas.

I am glad you can translate for us who are not fluent in smartass as you are.

_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)